GAMAN AND Another vs The STATE
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing them post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of causing injuries to two individuals, with one petitioner allegedly inflicting a 'takwa' blow and the other a stick blow. While the High Court had granted bail to co-accused who were not charged with causing serious injuries, it denied bail to the petitioners, who had been in judicial custody since October 1974. The petitioners argued that the ingredients for an offense under Section 307 were not established. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the First Information Report, held that the High Court had not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in denying bail. The Court emphasized that the bail stage is not the appropriate time for the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the High Court's exercise of judicial discretion regarding the grant of bail.
- Is the bail stage an appropriate time for the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case?
- Can a High Court's refusal to grant bail be overturned if the discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or capriciously?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The two petitioners herein were alongwith seven others, accused in a case under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. The case was registered on the 29th September, 1974.
2. The part attributed to the petitioners in this case was that the petitioner No. 1 had given a `takwa' blow to Muhammad Khadim and that the peti--tioner No. 2 had given a stick blow to one, Fateh Ali.
3. The 'takwa' injury has, however, been found by the Doctor to be of a simple nature.
4. All the accused applied for bail before the Judge, Lahore, but the latter refused to enlarge them on bail. They then came up to the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court enlarged the other co-accused on bail because they had not been charged with having caused any serious injury to anyone but rejected the application of the present petitioners who have .Now been in the judicial lock-up since 1-10-1974. They have, therefore, come up to this Court for special leave to appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has sought to contend that no case under section 307 had been made out and, therefore, these petitioners should also have been enlarged on bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the F. I. R. We are no in a position to say that the learned Judge in the High Court had exercised his discretion either arbitrarily or capriciously. This is not the stage for the appreciation of evidence but on the allegations as they stand, it cannot be said that the High Court has exercised its discretion wrongly.
7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL GHANI vs ZULFIQAR AL! AND 3 OTHERS 1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 50